COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs Rajesh Singh

THIS is an appeal by commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rewa directing an order of the District Forum, Rewa directing him to allot a shop in Samruddhi Complex, Rewa to the respondent within two months of the order, in the alternative to pay Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum together with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation as also Rs. 200/- as Lawyer''s fees and Rs. 100/ -as expenses of the litigation.

THE respondent had filed a complaint before the Forum contending that he is a displaced person who has been up-rooted from his premises, which were taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Rewa for construction of a Commercial complex named Samruddhi Complex. His name was registered in the list of displaced persons and he was assuredly by the Municipal Corporation while removing him from the premises that a shop in the Samruddhi Complex will be allotted to him within three months. When shops in the Samruddhi complex were ready for occupation the respondent approached the appellant and he was directed to open an account with the Rewa-Seeddhi Gramin Bank through whom loan was being arranged for payment of premium for the prospective allottees of the shops. He was assured that immediately after the opening of the account allotment would be made in his favour. THE respondent contended that he had complied with this requirement also and informed the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant gave a written notice to him on 14.5.90 directing him to deposit Rs. 5000/-as premium for a shop. Again on 28.7.90 the respondent was asked to deposit Rs. 15,000/- towards premium. This amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the respondent but, even after a lapse of two years the shop was not allotted to the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. The Municipal Corporation. Rewa after having received the notice of the complaint raised a preliminary objection before the Forum as to the jurisdiction of the Forum to deal with the case, as according to the Municipal Corporation, the transaction was not between a consumer and a trader or manufacturer and neither any goods were supplied by the Municipal Corporation nor a service was rendered or promised to be rendered by it. According to the Municipal Corporation there was no question therefore of supply of defective goods or deficiency in service.

The District Forum, Rewa has held the case to be cognizable by it on the ground that Rs. 20,000/- were got deposited by the Municipal Corporation by assuring the respondent of allotment of a shop. Consequently, the order granting the relief was passed by the Forum. Aggrieved by the order the appellant has now preferred this appeal before the Commission.

THE short question involved in the case is whether the transaction between parties is covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''). "Complaint" has been defined in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act to mean any allegation in writing made by a complainant that the complainant had suffered loss or damage as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader or some goods supplied to the complainant suffer from one or more defects or that there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party or a trader has charged for the goods price in excess of the price fixed by law. It has not been contended either in the complaint before the Forum or before us that the appellant is a trader who had sold any goods to the respondent. THErefore, the only relevant portion in the definition of complaint for our purposes is as under : - "Complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that (i) * * * * (ii) * * * * (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) * * * * with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act." Similarly, the term "Consumer" has been defined in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act and the portion of it relevant for our purposes is as under : - "Consumer" means any person who (i) * * * * (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person." "Deficiency" has been defined in Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act as follows : - "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

Clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act defines ''Service'' as follows : - "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or loading or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."

In the light of aforesaid provisions of law the complaint filed by the respondent has to be decided for deciding whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the case or not. What has been alleged by the complainant before the forum is that he was promised allotment of a shop by the Municipal Corporation and on that assurance Rs. 20,000/- were got deposited from him and despite his being eligible the shop is not being allotted to him. Now, allotment of a shop cannot be hiring of any service within the meaning of clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act reproduced above. Consequently, the complainant/respondent cannot fall within the definition of Consumer because no hiring of service is involved in the transaction. For the same reason, the grievance of the respondent cannot fall in the definition of complaint under the Act as no "service" was involved in the transaction. As there is no service involved, the question of deficiency in service naturally does not arise. The transaction is purely that of an alleged agreement to allot a shop which was allegedly broken by the appellant. Such transaction does not fall within the scope of the Act and, therefore, remedy under the Act is not available to the party aggrieved.

IN our opinion therefore the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The order of the District Forum is therefore set aside. The complaint be filed as no useful purpose will be served by returning it to the complainant. The respondent/complainant is of course free to approach the appropriate Court of law for redressal of his grievance. IN the circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint rejected.